Hi Tina,
I looked at the bottom of the pitcher, and it is rough and has no markings.
I have a Western Stoneware #4 Butter Churn in the front hall, filled
with several canes, including cut-off pool cue sticks. Here is the 1929
catalog:
http://www.westernstoneware.com/wsc_cat_1929.pdf
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
On 12/27/2016 4:31 PM, Tina Manley wrote:
The coffee cups come from Marshall Pottery in Georgia. We have looked and
looked for more like them but they are as scarce as hen's teeth!
https://www.google.com/search?q=Marshall+Pottery+Georgia&rlz=1C1CAFB_enUS636US636&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiS7aaztpXRAhXKzFQKHbXLARcQsAQIHA&biw=1920&bih=1070
I think they are beautiful and your photos show that!
Tina
On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 12:24 AM, Jim Nichols <jhnichols@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Giving this discussion a little more thought, I brought the pitcher back
and sat it alongside my monitor. While the colors are a little truer in
the image posted on Dec. 20th, the texture and general appearance are
closer to the first image, posted on Dec. 18th. Running my hand over the
surface vertically, I can feel slight ridges running parallel to the blue
lines. And there are small specks beneath the glaze that one can feel very
clearly. All told, the first is the more accurate image, and the second
is"over-smoothed".
Incidentally, in one of Tina's SL images, Tom is holding a coffee cup from
the same pattern.
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
On 12/25/2016 6:49 PM, Moose wrote:
On 12/22/2016 8:54 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
Funny. I do indeed have 20/10 vision, but I feel it was a different sort
of visual acuity at work here. I know what that kind of pottery looks
and
feels like, and the first versions didn't 'feel' right. Looking more
closely/critically, I found that the reason was noise that gave a
slightly
rough texture to the appearance of the glaze.
And I felt exactly the opposite. I know that that glaze has texture to
it. That's the natural "flaw" to the process and materials.
That's not my experience of that sort of pottery that I've known. I
recall a slightly 'rustic' creation, with occasional, small lacunae, were
the glaze wasn't applied perfectly and occasional rough spots, where
something in the clay stuck up or something hard got into the glaze.
Between these anomalies, however, it was very smooth and shiny - to touch,
as well as sight.
However,
in person, we have two eyes looking at the object and we have a
built-in texture-averaging and noise-reduction mechanism in our visual
system that is based on edge-detect and motion sensing. The rest of
our vision is based on "content aware fill".
Therefore, the first version was much more accurate to the surface
characteristics, but the second version was more representative of how
we would have seen it in person.
Both are great, both are accurate, both are true, but the artistic
intent is different.
Nah, I think we are going to have to meet in Tullahoma, and see what it's
really like. :-)
No earlier than May, though.
Spring Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|